iOS only has Opera Mini, not Opera Mobile, Android has both.Opera Mini uses Opera Servers to pre-render the website, so no HTML/JS/.. code gets interpreted on the iPhone. Opera Mobile on the other hand is a 'real' browser, which Apple doesn't allow on iOSReply

I believe it's for security reasons, since Apple's Nitro JS Engine requires that unsigned code be run, and Safari takes steps to prevent that from being used maliciously. Allowing third party apps to do the same could open some holes in security.Reply

Isn't that why they have a stringent screening process? Charge more and give the appearance of quality when in reality restricting other app functionality in the name of security is just BS for your on iOS use our products only. They have always been a closed system hether its hardware or software.

I'm yet to see any exploits on the android version of these apps which are from well known developers like Opera or Dolphine. Reply

Without the JIT compiler, it simply cannot compete with safari. I'm honestly not sure why Google bothered pitching it as a full browser rather than just doing a "Chrome Sync" app like Mozilla did for Firefox.

This isn't actually arbitrary from Apple. The problem as I understand it is that the JIT compiler can't be run in the sandbox as it sets memory pages executable, and could thus be used to trivially jailbreak. Reply

And yet the device is still being Jail broken albeit other methods. When are they going to learn to give up some restriction in favor of user choices. If iOS offers what everyone needs then they truly don't have to worry about jailbreaks but with a closed restrictive monopolistic environment they spend half their time trying to patchup potential holes that will always be there.Reply

Dunno man, webpages are loading much faster for me on chrome than safari. It's almost like desktop browsing. I was really surprised by how snappy it was. I wasn't expecting much difference so it's a surprise to me as well.Reply

I'd be interested in seeing some page load times for a variety of websites. I'm curious to see how having a slower Javascript engine affects performance. It seems pretty quick to me. Possibly quicker than Safari, somehow.

So far I'm quite impressed with Chrome on iOS. This is the first time I'm considering completely replacing Safari with a third party browser. Right now I only use Dolphin for when I want to view pages in desktop mode. I couldn't get the desktop mode in Chrome to work on Engadget, I had to scroll to the bottom and choose desktop view. But It worked on every other site I tried.

I'm more interested in how the iPhone in the picture appears to be using 3G T-Mobile! I thought you could use an unlocked iPhone on T-Mobile, but it was stuck using GSM/Edge, and you still had to manually enter some settings to work, and don't get visual voicemail, etc.

Is that not the case? Does T-Mobile work more smoothly with the iPhone now?

The one thing keeping me with Apple is the awesome podcast support, only they seem to be destroying that with their HORRIFIC "podcasts" program they released a few days ago...like rumors have it iOS 6 will ONLY support that, which will quite possibly leave me with no reason to use iOS over Android or Windows Phone 8.Reply

There was a mention somewhere a few weeks ago that T-Mobile was starting to switch 3G bands to better accomodate iPhones in the future - they want in on the next round of updates. One of the first locations is supposedly right around Moscone Center - this was discovered more or less at WWDC, and it's the same place that I/O is happening at.Reply

Because Apple doesn't enjoy a 99.9999% market share in smart phones. Apple is doing this to protect the their image and integrity of their product. Can it been seen as anti-competitive? Sure. Is it monopolistic? Not even close.Reply

I agree 100%, but Apple is still in the fan stage and in the general public's eye...Can do not wrong. As general consumers gain greater technical knowledge and learn about the other choices in the market...they will begin to realize the trap they've fallen into. Proprietary he_l.

I do have an issue with the speed in which Apple is injecting itself into public school systems. Selling 15 million worth of Ipads to a California school system. What idiot thinks all these children will care for the hardware? I'll be interested to see how many units are broken after the first month and by the end of the first school year. Then try and see how they will pay for the repair/replacement costs. Do the parents have to sign a responsibly agreement? I'll guarantee they won't all sign if that's the case.

I think you may be missing the point. General consumers don't want more technical knowledge. Unlike readers of this web site, general consumers prefer appliances over tinker tools. Provided said appliances let them achieve their goals, they prefer a minimum of hassle understanding and configuring the appliances. I think that's why general consumers like Apple products, and that's what Apple is trying to provide. It doesn't appeal to us tech types and offends our sense of what everyone should want. Reply

Apple created the hardware (and thus the ecosystem). When was the last time you tried sideloading your own special OS/app on a Sony Vita or add an App to your featurephone? Should we sue featurephone makers for not allowing you to develop and load an MP3 player app for use with a featurephone? Just because a device maker opens their device enough to allow third-party apps doesn't mean they are required to be fair about it. Windows, however, did not make the PC hardware that the OS ran on, they simply forced OEMs to sell ONLY their OS on ALL of their kits going out or they would not be able to put Windows on anything. Once they became the de-facto PC OS and had the market entirely dependent upon them, then they were restricted in what they did with that position. If Apple forbade carriers from selling Android/Win7 phones if they were to sell the iPhone, and somehow became the 95% marketshare leader that MS was, then you might have an argument about monopolistic practices. But Apple's business practices don't do well as a market share leader, as they were never aiming to be such. They're a company like Rolex: they sell overly-expensive items with an air of higher-quality, even if only marginally so (or not, depending on taste).Reply

I don't buy that argument. Seems like exactly the same situation to me, and Microsoft gets jumped on for...you know, like icons being too prominent or something, while Apple gets praised for flat out blocking competition.

Their situation with like Barnes & Noble and Amazon not being able to sell books directly through t heir programs on iOS (and only iOS) is ludicrous too.Reply

Isn't it exactly what Apple is trying to do here as well, create a monopoly or sue everyone regardless of whether hardware is not the same, screen and OS is different. Circumventing vendors to sell only to its stores or devices. It would have been extremely successful had it priced its hardware right and kept it an open environment with micro sd and USB connectivity. Basically unlike MSFT its keeping its customers unhappy. Its forcing its own demise through its stupidity. Adding insult to injury, comes up with hardly the latest new or innovative hardware and charges twice the amount for it while dropping support for its devices which are just over 2 years old and which still cannot be unlocked until its 5 years old.Reply

Full OSes and Mobile OSes are an entirely different ballgame. And Microsoft had a massive market share, unlike iOS.

It's likely for security reasons that Apple isn't allowing UIWebView to use the Nitro Javascript Engine, as it requires that unsigned code be run. Safari has things in place to prevent that from being exploited and allowing UIWebView to have access to the Nitro JS Engine may allow for it to be exploited.Reply

I'm sure they could ask other developers to put in similar safe guards if security was the only issue which I'm sure most would comply to be able to sell the full third party browser experience to Apple users.Reply

Sure... but remember that this means every UIWebView -- including apps already on the App Store -- would have this potential problem. Perhaps Apple will open it up (safely) for UIWebView, but they absolutely won't if it could be exploited. I honestly don't know why they do it but, seeing how Apple keeps things locked down, it just fits.

And what about developers that don't? There will be plenty of them.Reply

Apple was a dominant player in the early pc market but closed, over priced environment and hardware forced many business especially during recessions to move with a stable low cost alternatives which included first IBM and then Dell running a cheaper but stable OS, Windows whose updates and support didn't fave to be paid for.

Apple is doing the same thing all over again and its only a matter of 1-2 years before they lose to alternative hardware and OS devices. Reply

Apple never had the market they have with the iOS devices now. And the iOS devices are similarly priced to the competition. I don't think you can compare this exactly to the desktop computer industry in the 80s and 90s. The iPod certainly never lost to cheaper competitors. Apple basically led that market until the market itself was replaced by smartphones.Reply

As a further case in point, it appears that Chrome for iOS is severely crippled in terms of performance. Normally, no one would complain and/or notice a 10-20% performance difference in page loads. But we’ve found that page load performance using Chrome on iOS is almost 2x slower than Safari. According to the results from our BrowsingBench test (www.eembc.org/benchmark/browsing_sl.php) run on an iphone 4G and an iPad2, Safari weighs in at 919 and 2340, respectively. On the other hand, when running Chrome on the same platforms, our test results were 478 and 1241, respectively. Although we didn’t do any under-the-hood analysis, we also ran the BrowsingBench test using the Dolphin browser on the iphone 4G, and obtained a score of 956.Reply